What do you think would be good applications for nanotechnology we've "borrowed" in the Stargate universe? Say we can reverse engineer it and get it to work what would you like to see?

I think the nanocytes seen in Brief Candle would be great little medical miracles, just think of the possibilities.......repair if inborn genetic problems, healing wounds, delay of ageing..........they could be endless!! ;)

What ideas do you all have??

immhotep

June 16th, 2005, 11:13 AM

Creating human form replicators, oh no wait nasa's trying that one!
But medical issues are the key, having them in the bloodstream could enhance your body etc.....like jake 2.0 for those whove seen it. that would be cool.

PrimalAscended

June 16th, 2005, 12:06 PM

Now the human-form replicator technology could be pretty exciting too........could be used to make reconfigurable devices etc........think a backpack that can breakdown and reassemble around ya into a layer of armour.......or even clothes/uniforms made out of them......

6thMonolith

June 16th, 2005, 12:12 PM

Maybe that's what SG-1 carries with them in those magic pockets. Nanoblocks that change into whatever you need... :P

_Owen_

June 16th, 2005, 01:01 PM

They would mostly be used for medicince but also as weapons, we could use them to wipe out the wraith, just have them search out all wraiths and kill them. We could use this for other enemies too. They could be used to help fix things, like computers and machines. But they should not be made into human form replicators.

Owen Macri

6thMonolith

June 16th, 2005, 01:08 PM

We could do something kinda like the nano's in Hot Zone

_Owen_

June 16th, 2005, 01:10 PM

Yes, but so they kill wraith, lol, instead of humans. lol

Owen Macri

SmartEagle

June 16th, 2005, 01:29 PM

It all sounds pretty neat... but you can't help feeling that it's going to go bad somewhere! If SG1 decided to use it it's bound to blow up in their faces, that's what keeps the show interesting. Is there a sci-fi show anywhere in which artificial inteligence hasn't turned around to bite humanity back? :rolleyes:

We could use nano tech to grow entire structures, like buildings, bridges, transport terminals, or coat trees with nano based polymers, so they would be resistant to weather, that would be great!

_Owen_

June 16th, 2005, 06:55 PM

ya, except if the building gets hit with an em pulse the nano bots all deactivate and the building isn't so much a building but a pile of metal.

Owen Macri

Jarnin

June 16th, 2005, 08:08 PM

The most impressive use of nanotech thus far in either series was those used in the SG-1 episode Learning Curve. The Orbanians used their nanites to learn very quickly, the problem was in order for them to learn, one of their children had to forget all their knowledge. Since they didn't know about teaching, their kids basically sat around like veggies.

However, if everybody had those nanites in their brains, and they were able to communicate with each other wirelessly, people could learn just about anything instantly. The nanites from one person could relay information to the nanites in another person, thus allowing people to learn new skills and knowledge.

Just think about Neo in the Matrix:

Neo: I know kung fu.

_Owen_

June 16th, 2005, 08:15 PM

Yes, they would make a good comunications device, (I know I am going to sound like a Borg or something) but it would be far more efficient to communicate telepathically. However if they ever develop sentience it would not be pretty, allthough they could simply be used as transmiters and recievers, everyones brain speaks the same laguage so all it would need to go is convert the brain signals to some kind of radio signal, and then back again. However the technology would have to be carfully programed so that you could activate it when ever you want to and share only the information that you want to. So it would be a little more dificult than it seems, there would be mental training required, allthough it would not be incredible mental training, just like reading the manual on a piece of technology before you use it.

Owen Macri

Jarnin

June 16th, 2005, 08:29 PM

Yes, they would make a good comunications device, (I know I am going to sound like a Borg or something) but it would be far more efficient to communicate telepathically.
Except telepathic communication wasn't part of their function. They simply were used for knowledge storage, so when they were removed from one person and inserted in another, the person recieving the nanite would gain knowledge the other person once had.

However if they ever develop sentience it would not be pretty
Not sure why you brought this up.

allthough they could simply be used as transmiters and recievers
More like digital storage with wireless communications capabilities.

everyones brain speaks the same laguage so all it would need to go is convert the brain signals to some kind of radio signal, and then back again.
I take it you've never taken an organic chemistry class? Brains don't speak the same language at all.

However the technology would have to be carfully programed so that you could activate it when ever you want to and share only the information that you want to.
The nanites were on all the time, that way they would record all the knowledge a person learned. If you could disable them, they lose their usefulness.

So it would be a little more dificult than it seems, there would be mental training required, allthough it would not be incredible mental training, just like reading the manual on a piece of technology before you use it.
More like having the knowledge instantly in your head, and all you have to do is access it. No reading required.

_Owen_

June 16th, 2005, 08:41 PM

Sorry, misunderstanding, I was not refering to the nanites from "Learning Curve" I was just refering to nanites in general.

Except telepathic communication wasn't part of their function. They simply were used for knowledge storage, so when they were removed from one person and inserted in another, the person recieving the nanite would gain knowledge the other person once had.

Nanites could easily be programmed and altered to transmit any kind of signal.

Not sure why you brought this up.

I brought this up to exress the possible dangers of nanite technology.

More like digital storage with wireless communications capabilities.

No, the brain would do the storing, the nanites would just convert and transmit the data.

I take it you've never taken an organic chemistry class? Brains don't speak the same language at all.

You are right there, I have never taken an organic chemistry class, but that is because I have never had the opportunity, I am only in grade eight. Allthough brains do not speak exactly the same way, the signals are similar, you are right, they probably could not be read by the recievers brain however the nanites could be programed to convert the signal into the language of the users brain. Brains speak basically the same language but incredibly diffrent dialects.

[/Quote]The nanites were on all the time, that way they would record all the knowledge a person learned. If you could disable them, they lose their usefulness.
[/Quote]

Just part of the misunderstanding, however they could be on but in an idle mode, until the user activates them.

More like having the knowledge instantly in your head, and all you have to do is access it. No reading required.

I was using the reading as an example for my point that you would have to learn to control the nanites first.

Owen Macri

Jarnin

June 16th, 2005, 08:53 PM

Nanites could easily be programmed and altered to transmit any kind of signal.
How about dropping the "this is stargate" act and stop speaking in technobabble so we could have a real conversation?

I brought this up to exress the possible dangers of nanite technology.
Again, them becoming sentient wasn't even part of their design. They were storage only. I stated that by adding wireless communications to them, you could exchange knowledge without having to suck the nanites out of a persons head and injecting them into someone else.

No, the brain would do the storing, the nanites would just convert and transmit the data.
This wouldn't work, and I'll explain below.

Allthough brains do not speak exactly the same way, the signals are similar, you are right, they probably could not be read by the recievers brain however the nanites could be programed to convert the signal into the language of the users brain. Brains speak basically the same language but incredibly diffrent dialects.
The problem with having the nanites do the translation is that everybodies brain speaks a completely different language. It's not like American brains speak English; it's that every American's brain would speak a completely different language based on different dialects and phoneme systems.

That's why the brain couldn't be used for storage; the nanites wouldn't be able to translate.

Just part of the misunderstanding, however they could be on but in an idle mode, until the user activates them.
But how exactly would you activate them? Telepathy? I mean it's not like you could reach into your brain with a nano poker and hit the on switch.

_Owen_

June 16th, 2005, 09:09 PM

How about dropping the "this is stargate" act and stop speaking in technobabble so we could have a real conversation?

Again, them becoming sentient wasn't even part of their design. They were storage only. I stated that by adding wireless communications to them, you could exchange knowledge without having to suck the nanites out of a persons head and injecting them into someone else.

This wouldn't work, and I'll explain below.

The problem with having the nanites do the translation is that everybodies brain speaks a completely different language. It's not like American brains speak English; it's that every American's brain would speak a completely different language based on different dialects and phoneme systems.

That's why the brain couldn't be used for storage; the nanites wouldn't be able to translate.

But how exactly would you activate them? Telepathy? I mean it's not like you could reach into your brain with a nano poker and hit the on switch.
Ok, first of all, it is not technobabble, it actually means something. You only call it technobabble because you probably don't understand it, but if you do understand it then it is not technobabble. This is the Science and Technology section, you didn't expect "technobabble?"

Again, them becoming sentient wasn't even part of their design. They were storage only. I stated that by adding wireless communications to them, you could exchange knowledge without having to suck the nanites out of a persons head and injecting them into someone else.

That was only the nanobots in "Learning Curve" any nanobots can be altered to do what I am suggesting.

This wouldn't work, and I'll explain below.

The problem with having the nanites do the translation is that everybodies brain speaks a completely different language. It's not like American brains speak English; it's that every American's brain would speak a completely different language based on different dialects and phoneme systems.

That's why the brain couldn't be used for storage; the nanites wouldn't be able to translate.

Memories and information are stored two ways, there is the long term memory which is stored chemically, and short term which is stored electromagneticaly, there is sensory memory as well, but that is not important in this case.

Your brain reads long term memories, the nanobots could read the chemicals just as your brain does, it would convert them into working radio signals, etc. and transmit them like any other radio signal. Short term memory could be read as well, your brain manages to do it, nanobots could read it too, convert it into a usable signal and transmit it. As well sensory memory could be used, this would be just like when telepathic creatures comunicate and it is like they are talking, they could transmit the thought of "What are you doing today?" to the recieving nanobots, this would be transmitting the sensory memory.

The brain is used for storage and with the proper programming nanites could translate, they just need to know what everything means.

But how exactly would you activate them? Telepathy? I mean it's not like you could reach into your brain with a nano poker and hit the on switch.

You think about activating them, the nanites will read the sensory memory, and recognize that you are providing it with instructions, then instead of transmitting this thought, it will complete the function.

Owen Macri

Jarnin

June 16th, 2005, 09:44 PM

Ok, first of all, it is not technobabble, it actually means something. You only call it technobabble because you probably don't understand it, but if you do understand it then it is not technobabble. This is the Science and Technology section, you didn't expect "technobabble?"
Technobabble isn't based on science or technology. It's a way to explain something that sounds scientific or technological, but it's like saying the sky is blue because of purple monkey dishwashers; it's complete gibberish.

That was only the nanobots in "Learning Curve" any nanobots can be altered to do what I am suggesting.
Hypothetical. Considering that nanobots don't even exist, I think it'd be a little harder than you're making it out to be.

the nanobots could read the chemicals just as your brain does, it would convert them into working radio signals, etc. and transmit them like any other radio signal.

The brain is used for storage and with the proper programming nanites could translate, they just need to know what everything means.
Which means you've just run into the same problem I was pointing out in my previous post; the nanites would have to know your brain chemistry, then be able to translate that into nanite language, then transmit it to another nanite that knows how to translate that information into the brain chemisty of another person. I suppose it could work, but it's a big stretch.

The nanites would have to be able to manufacture chemicals in order to allow your brain to communicate with them, so how do you supply the chemicals?

You think about activating them, the nanites will read the sensory memory, and recognize that you are providing it with instructions, then instead of transmitting this thought, it will complete the function.
Like I said, it might work, but it's a huge leap on your behalf.

_Owen_

June 16th, 2005, 10:19 PM

Nanites could easily be programmed and altered to transmit any kind of signal.

This is hardly what you would consider technobabble, it makes perfect sense.

Actually the sky is blue because when the light from the sun enters the Earths' atmosphere its' speed is slowed down so it apears as a colour closer to the near end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Hypothetical. Considering that nanobots don't even exist, I think it'd be a little harder than you're making it out to be.

It would not be difficult, the nanobots for the componants of a microscopic transmitter, they also form a network through the brain, the network intercepts and reads all memories and transmits them to a central processing unit, the read information is converted into a laguage that the nanites can understand, and then is either executed as a command or transmitted to another nanite reciever, which then converts it into signals that the users brain will understand and transmits it through the nanite network, it would be like that memory happening to that person through the eyes of another person, it wouldn't even need to be a visual transmission allthough it would be possible, it could be autditory, you just need to give the nanites the commands. You can also have like an internal phonebook, the nanite central processing unit can store the frequencies that are used by friends so you can just think about talking to Bob and then it sends Bob the signal on his frequency.

If you want to transmit to someone that you don't know, that is a diffrent story, the nanites would need to create some kind of scanning matrix inside you as well, you look at a person and tell the nanites to send a message to him, the nanites scan for his frequency and then send the message. However users can block people that they do not want to hear, so they may block certain frequencies, blocks of frequencies, as well as large groups of people, like anyone not in your phonebook it won't accept a message from. The nanites will recieve the message but then destroy it, so you won't be spammed by five hundred people every time you go to a mall.

The nanites would have to be able to manufacture chemicals in order to allow your brain to communicate with them, so how do you supply the chemicals?

The nanites don't necesarily need to communicate with you, just you with them, however nanites could accomplish this by releasing electromagnetic signals into the correct regions of your brain that recieve and process short term memory, you would only need the few seconds that it exists to process it, or it could be converted into long term memory.

Like I said, it might work, but it's a huge leap on your behalf.

It is not a huge leap, considering some of the other things that I come up with. I think it is actually very probable, and I think it would be a very good idea, it would increase the potential of the human race, it would even give us the opportunities to communicate with animals, which I think would be pretty cool. As well as babies, we would be able to talk to them as well, even before they are born. Come on, you can't say that isn't cool.

Owen Macri

Jarnin

June 16th, 2005, 10:26 PM

It is not a huge leap, considering some of the other things that I come up with.
You come up with some totally crazy, senseless and unfounded ideas. In fact, I've noticed that you're the spam king on this section of the board. I guess the moderators don't have a problem with it, but I do.

Welcome to the ignored by Jarnin list. That should cut about 95% of the frustration I get from reading this section of the board.

_Owen_

June 16th, 2005, 10:39 PM

Spam King... that is a new one. I am not spamming anyone or in any thread, I am simply posting, and it is my right. I post intelligent ideas. Perhaps some of them are a little bit "out there" but so what, that is how I think, am I now going to insulted because I like to think extensivley and outside of that box. Simply because it is crazy and unfounded does not mean that it is stupid senseless.

Personally I will take the crazy senseless comment as a compliment, when I read that line I thought that you were complimenting me, guess not.

If no one ever expanded on ideas or thought outside the box we would still be using horses and buggies, in the 1800s no one wanted scientists, no one wanted inventors, everything that was worth inventing had already been invented, now we have some incredible technology that helps billions of people around the world, and we wouldn't have that if no one thought outside the box, if no one dared to dream...

Owen Macri

SmartEagle

June 17th, 2005, 09:49 PM

I thought what you were saying was perfectly reasonable... and posible, considering the newspaper clip I read in the Oregonian this morning. This is what it said:

Invasive Nanite Probes

Using nanotechnology, researchers at Intel and Carnegie Mellon University plan to explore the new science of "claytronics," tiny robots that assemble into a claylike substance, able to assume any shape.

Isn't this what we've been looking forward to? We're already on the way!

_Owen_

June 17th, 2005, 10:09 PM

Yes, it is very possible and reasonable, a network would be set up in your brain, including an information processing unit, a transmitter, and a language converter, as well as a frequency modulator, but that would be included in the central processing unit. The nanites then read the memories, sensory, short term and long term of the person, they use sensory memories as comands but also send them, sensory memory can be used to send other memories, long or short term.

Like if you have MSN Messenger, normally you just chat with words, (sensory memory) but there is the occasion that you send the larger file, to show someone something. Either way it would effectivley create an artificial telephatic network between everyone who has this technology.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman

June 17th, 2005, 10:38 PM

You come up with some totally crazy, senseless and unfounded ideas. In fact, I've noticed that you're the spam king on this section of the board. I guess the moderators don't have a problem with it, but I do.

Welcome to the ignored by Jarnin list. That should cut about 95% of the frustration I get from reading this section of the board.Are you High? Owen hasn't done anything, except maybe make you fell stupid, if you don't like talking about technology then why the hell are you in the science and tech section?

_Owen_

June 17th, 2005, 10:48 PM

LMAO Thank you Col. Newman! Lol Nice! Basically what I was thinking. Personally, I like my crazy ideas!

Owen Macri

Col. Newman

June 17th, 2005, 10:54 PM

LMAO Thank you Col. Newman! Lol Nice! Basically what I was thinking. Personally, I like my crazy ideas!

Owen MacriI like your crazy ideas too :D

_Owen_

June 17th, 2005, 11:04 PM

Lol, thank you, crazy ideas are the best kind, they are going to be far more interesting than non-crazy ones, because people would think that the non-crazy ones are not crazy because they have already heard about them or recognized them, or they contain points that are all standard to many other aspects of things.

With crazy ideas, you never expect them and you say "holy cr...ud, that is one damn crazy idea!' Wow, I am going on about nothing, lol, I'm done.

Owen Macri

~Thor~

June 18th, 2005, 12:41 AM

They already can connect computers to peoples brain (look at http://www.cyberkineticsinc.com/) so all they need to do is use nano computers inside your brain to proccess, store and send all the stuff. It should even be possible to see/hear/smell things other people can see/hear/smell (or even video cameras, microphones, internet etc)

_Owen_

June 18th, 2005, 06:44 AM

That is really cool, I had heard about some research into, and I knew that it was theoretically possible, that is what I based my idea on.

Once you get to reading the brain, all you need are computers (preferably within the brain also made of nanobots) to process the data, and also accept commands in the form of a sensory memory. Sensory memory could also be used to send "vocal" messages to the person, like in T.V. shows when one telepath says something in their head and the other telepath hears their voice in thier head.

Owen Macri

SmartEagle

June 18th, 2005, 09:54 PM

I'd read about something like that a while ago, I don't remember where. By wiring a basic camera into a blind person's brain they were able to see again. So even if this technology isn't used right away to send messages telepathically or converse with computers, it can be used for great medical advancements that aren't so complicated in the near future.

Because even though everybody's brain is different, they aren't different by that much. They all send signals using the same kind of electric or chemical signals.

There's nobody out there that hasn't had a crazy idea at least once in their life, and those who discuss them are far more interesting to be around!

~Thor~

June 19th, 2005, 04:10 PM

Once you get to reading the brain, all you need are computers (preferably within the brain also made of nanobots) to process the data, and also accept commands in the form of a sensory memory.
They have already used it for quadraplegics to move a mouse cursor on the computer screen and to type up a message by thinking. So all they really need to do is make the computers small enough yet powerfull enough (nanobots) to be able to fit inside the body and process all data (plus make some small transmiting devices for connecting to computers(internet) and other people)

_Owen_

June 19th, 2005, 05:03 PM

Well, I don't think the technology has been utilised on the level that I am thinking of, the technology utilised in the cases that you are thinking of (and I could be wrong) was far less advanced than what we would need. Most of the concepts have not been figured out yet, the ability to scan and convert memory into a type of language that a computer can understand, by a device other than the brain. That would be the only difficult part, everything else would be relativley simple.

Owen Macri

6thMonolith

June 19th, 2005, 06:04 PM

Relativley simple if we have help from the Asgard...

Col. Newman

June 19th, 2005, 06:08 PM

Well, I don't think the technology has been utilised on the level that I am thinking of, the technology utilised in the cases that you are thinking of (and I could be wrong) was far less advanced than what we would need. Most of the concepts have not been figured out yet, the ability to scan and convert memory into a type of language that a computer can understand, by a device other than the brain. That would be the only difficult part, everything else would be relativley simple.

Owen MacriWhen nano technology is perfected it will pretty much mean the end of cancer and other incurable diseases, and thats just the beginning

_Owen_

June 19th, 2005, 06:28 PM

Lol, cancer, all you need to do for that is beam out all the cancer cells and replicate and replace them with healthy ones.

But you are right, with nano technology, it would open up thousands of new possiblities, but there would always be the one super villian that wants to use them to destroy people, or take over countries...

Owen Macri

Jprime

June 19th, 2005, 06:38 PM

If you look at the design of something seemingly 'simple', like an ameoba, you can see that the perfect nanobot is already here and ready for reprogramming to our purposes. It can self-replicate, move, absorb energy efficiently, create tiny structures, and loads of other things we haven't ever managed to do artificially.

If you want more proof that microorganisms are perfect for this task, read Nature's Destiny.

_Owen_

June 19th, 2005, 07:46 PM

That is an intriguing idea, however I would feel better, believe it or not, with nanobots running around in my head. With a nanobot if anything goes wrong, boom EMP, problem gone. With a single celled organism, you would have an alien organism inside your body, whenever someone gets some type of alien biological agent put inside thier body, the consiquences are usually not goot.

Except that cool translator fish from "The Hitchhickers' Guide To The Galaxy!"

Lol.

Owen Macri

PrimalAscended

June 20th, 2005, 11:35 AM

hehehe....yeah, the Babel fish......."probably the best sci-fi creation in the world", to nick the slogan of a well known beer beverage.........

_Owen_

June 20th, 2005, 01:10 PM

Lol, that movie was so funny!

Owen Macri

PrimalAscended

June 20th, 2005, 05:21 PM

Wasn't talking about the movie......haven't seen it! I meant the book and the original TV series............

_Owen_

June 20th, 2005, 05:22 PM

Oh, ok, well the movie was funny. The book was good too. There was a T.V. series?

Owen Macri

PrimalAscended

June 21st, 2005, 08:46 AM

Yeah there was.......a good ole British series.......from the early '80s, saw it again recently.......a little dated now I admit but still brilliant!!!

Jprime

June 21st, 2005, 09:10 AM

That is an intriguing idea, however I would feel better, believe it or not, with nanobots running around in my head. With a nanobot if anything goes wrong, boom EMP, problem gone. With a single celled organism, you would have an alien organism inside your body, whenever someone gets some type of alien biological agent put inside thier body, the consiquences are usually not goot.

Except that cool translator fish from "The Hitchhickers' Guide To The Galaxy!"

Lol.

Owen Macri

I bet that something biological would be easier modified to pass under the body's immunological radar than something like a nanobot.

I think some work has actually been done at MIT with modifying ameboas into primitive 'robots'.

Jprime

June 21st, 2005, 09:12 AM

Yeah there was.......a good ole British series.......from the early '80s, saw it again recently.......a little dated now I admit but still brilliant!!!

Ever read 'Salmon of Doubt'?

_Owen_

June 21st, 2005, 01:31 PM

I bet that something biological would be easier modified to pass under the body's immunological radar than something like a nanobot.

I think some work has actually been done at MIT with modifying ameboas into primitive 'robots'.
I personally think that nanobots would be more effective and safer, if you have a problem with them, then *ZAP* with an EMP, problem gone, with something biological you would need something that would attack only the organism and no surrounding tissue.

Owen Macri

SmartEagle

June 21st, 2005, 05:31 PM

A microbe could be destroyed by the body's immune system if it rejected the new technology, but a nanobot would be resistant. Plus the nanobots could be controlled better by an outside source. So they would be safer.

_Owen_

June 21st, 2005, 07:01 PM

There are many situations that a micro-organism, would be impervious to the bodys' immune system, it could be "programmed" or genetically altered to defend properly against the the bodys' immune system, so yes nanobots would be far safer.

Owen Macri

Jprime

June 22nd, 2005, 02:30 PM

There are many situations that a micro-organism, would be impervious to the bodys' immune system, it could be "programmed" or genetically altered to defend properly against the the bodys' immune system, so yes nanobots would be far safer.

Owen Macri

Before any responsable (thats not too say somebody won't try it prematurely) scientist would inject somebody with a biological nanobot they'd have to be extremely familiar with its construction, in order to build it in the first place, or at least modify something existing to make it do whatever its supposed to do now. This means they'd have to be able to control everything about it, right down to the genetic level. This means they could render it impotent, thus removing any chance it could have had to breed and mutate. This pretty much nullifies any possibility of it running amok.

The downside to mechanical nanobots is that nobody likes to talk about certain aspects of their construction, such as how their sensors can possibly be made that small yet give useful information about their surroundings, how they could process that information, what they could use for a power source, or how can they know where they are.

_Owen_

June 22nd, 2005, 03:06 PM

Yes, you could try to control every aspect of the nanobots, but there is always the possibility that something will go wrong, especially when in the uncharted space that is the human brain.

Owen Macri

Supreme Thor

June 22nd, 2005, 06:37 PM

Yes, you could try to control every aspect of the nanobots, but there is always the possibility that something will go wrong, especially when in the uncharted space that is the human brain.

Owen Macri
After all, we only really use 10% of our entire brains, and the rest is basically our subconscious, which stores all of the information that our normal conscience (did I say that right?) can't recall. The nanobots could possibly mistake a past memory as a recent and attack/disable/etc. the person.

_Owen_

June 22nd, 2005, 06:59 PM

I highly doubt that that would happen, they would be specifically programed with very advanced programming, they would be able to tell the diffrence between the diffrent types of memory. As well they would not likley mistake them, because they would be able to read the "time stamp" that is encoded with each memory.

Owen Macri

Jprime

June 22nd, 2005, 09:36 PM

After all, we only really use 10% of our entire brains, and the rest is basically our subconscious, which stores all of the information that our normal conscience (did I say that right?) can't recall. The nanobots could possibly mistake a past memory as a recent and attack/disable/etc. the person.

Nope, we use all the brain all the time. The whole 'you only really use 10%, the rest are dormant psychic powers just waiting to be tapped by (insert movie plot device)' thing was a misunderstanding waaaaaay back when th brain was first being examined.'

Jprime

June 22nd, 2005, 09:37 PM

I highly doubt that that would happen, they would be specifically programed with very advanced programming, they would be able to tell the diffrence between the diffrent types of memory. As well they would not likley mistake them, because they would be able to read the "time stamp" that is encoded with each memory.

Owen Macri

But we aren't even CLOSE to figuring out the time stamp...we're still arguing about how memories are stored (beyond the basic theory of RNA encoding, ect.)...

_Owen_

June 22nd, 2005, 09:53 PM

Yes, you are completley right, but that doesn't mean that we can't theorize about it before it happens. All we need is the information and the technology, we have the plan. The brain is a very complex organ, the most complex, maybe the Ancients can help us with it...

Owen Macri

Jprime

June 22nd, 2005, 10:01 PM

That'd sure make things a LOT easier.

Personally I'm of the mind that (barring alien help of course) we ourselves cannot ever unwravel our own minds, any more than my dog can figure out her own. Its 0k though, because we have at our disposal a powerful machine that can solve this problem for us. It is called a computer. How to build a 'smart' computer if we don't even know what makes US smart, you ask? Simple. Let it build itself. Give it a massive knowledge base, the means to improve on its own design (through the aid of an expert design system) and a good smack on the behind to get it moving.

It could take a while, but I think its our best option in the long run.

_Owen_

June 22nd, 2005, 10:05 PM

I think we should make a guy a robot.

lol, nevermind I would explain it but it would be so far off topic!

Owen Macri

SmartEagle

June 25th, 2005, 10:59 PM

That'd sure make things a LOT easier.

Personally I'm of the mind that (barring alien help of course) we ourselves cannot ever unwravel our own minds, any more than my dog can figure out her own. Its 0k though, because we have at our disposal a powerful machine that can solve this problem for us. It is called a computer. How to build a 'smart' computer if we don't even know what makes US smart, you ask? Simple. Let it build itself. Give it a massive knowledge base, the means to improve on its own design (through the aid of an expert design system) and a good smack on the behind to get it moving.

It could take a while, but I think its our best option in the long run.

A smart computer would be a great help to us in a way, but how would it help us cure diseases and figure out our brains' functionings? We'd need something that would fit inside the brain, unless we could somehow wire ourselves to this computer. And if the computer builds itself, we could not predict what the final result would be, it would be whatever the computer decided. Interesting thought, though. We can build a "Deep Thought" while we're at it.

_Owen_

June 26th, 2005, 08:34 AM

There would be one problem in letting a computer build itself, if it used all of the knowledge that humans possesed it would most likley become so advanced that even we could not understand it.

Owen Macri

Jprime

June 28th, 2005, 11:34 AM

If it was smart enough to understand every bit of our inner workings, right down to unwravelling DNA and the neural net, it should have little trouble in dumbing itself down to converse on our level. The only problem is, would it really WANT to?

Jprime

June 28th, 2005, 11:39 AM

A smart computer would be a great help to us in a way, but how would it help us cure diseases and figure out our brains' functionings? We'd need something that would fit inside the brain, unless we could somehow wire ourselves to this computer. And if the computer builds itself, we could not predict what the final result would be, it would be whatever the computer decided. Interesting thought, though. We can build a "Deep Thought" while we're at it.

Basically it involves giving the computer a knowledge base that includes every thing that we know about everything (ie, the Internet). This would of course include things like detailed anatomical cross sections of every organ yet taxonomically identified, complete genomes, the periodic table, subatomic particles, everything. Then it would identify deficiencies in our DNA that make us vulnerable to diseases and devise ways of fixing them. If it was REALLY smart, it could even model the results internally, so we don't even have to test them. If its not our own DNA's fault, it could simply whip up a virus to combat whatever is making us sick in the first place.

SmartEagle

June 28th, 2005, 11:45 AM

So this would have to be a very small computer if it could work internally. But I guess if it was that smart, it could figure out how to make itself that small anyway. I would still feel much better if it was tested first before working on me, though.

Jprime

June 28th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Thats not exactly what I meant by internally. I mean to by internally was that it could simulate the modification's effects within itself, using some program it could generate on its own.

As the the actual size of the computer, my theory is that it would likely start out large, then get a lot smaller, then get big again. This is because the first design would be made with conventional tech, then it would figure out something revolutionary, like DNA-based computing, optical tech, or quantum computing, so it would get really small by our standards. Once its gotten as small as it could, it would have to get big again to continue its evolution.

_Owen_

July 3rd, 2005, 08:53 PM

Size is nothing, just because we can't currently fit a nuclear waste proccesing facility into my pocket doesn't mean that it is impossible.

Owen Macri

aironoeus

July 11th, 2005, 09:15 AM

Hold on here a second. Let's talk about if there is something that is senior to just the various chemicals and biological "gatherings" that make up your body. Despite life making some very amazing things let's consider for a moment that "life" AND "memories" might actually be something intangible. I don't think that at this point in time we can actually say for sure that we even know how memory is stored for humans. It might exist outside the body and have something to do with spiritualism.

Let's discuss that. Here is my opener on that:

How many times a second does the "mind" record the various perceptions that it takes in and how many perceptions are there? Let's try to figure that out or let's take a best guess.

Well we know that back during World War 2 they used to train gunmen on the naval ships to be able to recognize the exact country and model of each plane that flew by them with only 1/25th of a second to do it. They would flash a picture and the gunmen would have to be able to tell you what country and model that plane was. Was that the upper limit of how fast a human records perceptions? It is most likely that this is probably just under it. Maybe we record every 1/35th of a second. But let's assume the 1/25th for sake of argument.

So now to figure out .....say, 1 month of memory - it would be
# of perceptions X 25 (per second) X 60 (seconds in a minute) X 60 (minutes in a hour) X 24 (hours in a day) X 30 (days in a month).

Now we have to settle an argument as to whether or not we remember our dreams. Well don't tell me you don't remember any of your dreams! This is highly debateable as to whether it is dumped memory or not. Maybe it is saved only if the dream is "tagged" as significant. Because I can tell you right now that I can remember 2 dreams that I had when I was a kid that were fairly dramatic. Also there are hypnotizers I'm sure that could argue saying that they can eventually recover 50% of your dreams. But let's just drop the hours that you are sleeping so that we don't have to get into that argument for now.
So instead of 24 hours let's just assume that it is only say ....16.5 hours per day.

Now let's figure out how many perceptions and/or categories which would have to be recorded.
1)sight 2)sound 3)touch 4)taste 5)equilibrium 6)outside pressure 7)direction (magnetic) 8)hunger 9)internal temperature 10)outside temperature 11)aware of being aware 12)location 13)your emotion at the time 14)your thoughts at the time 15)conclusions......etc.

I mean either we break down a bunch of different single details into there various parts or we try to take a general category and say that the various details get recorded under it. But how can you do that? There is no real way to get all the various details smashed down into 4 or 5 senses so that they each have to have their own category. Plus now we run into the argument as to whether or not for example there is a separate sense for the 3 dimensionality of objects in your environment or is it only a determined result derived from analysis of the other senses because there are some blind people that will tell you that there is a separate perception just for objects in their environment.

I'm guessing there is probably 30 or so separate perceptions.
And how much data does each one of these details for each perception take up? Let's just take an extremely low shot in the dark and say 16bits to make it an even 2 bytes per individual sense/perception.

So 2 bites X 30 (perceptions) X 25 (times a second) X 60 (seconds in a minute) X 60 (minutes in an hour) X 16.5 (hours in a day) X 30 (days in a month) = 2,673,000,000 bytes
If you want kilobytes divide by a thousand to make 2,673,000 kbs.
So what's that, 2.67 terabytes or something like that (I can't remember my computer terms).....per month?
If you're seventy years old that potentially means that 70 years times 12 months = 840 times that figure.
So if each neuron can store one byte of memory does that cut it?
Or is something else going on that is separate from the body.
Cuz were talking 840 X 2,673,000kilobytes.

How is it storing it? Spintronics, holographic memory?
Is the memory being stored outside of the body in some way or carried around in this thing that we call a mind that remains intangible but only accessible by the lifeform owning it?
Now add on to that the immense Random Access type computing power neccessary for everyday living that a human has. Holy smokes!

When we are talking about nanotechnology and interfacing it to a human body let's try to keep in mind that there has to be a proper speed rate of in and out data exchange. One that matches the normal rate that the cells and coordinated structures are used to using. What I am saying is that, it is one thing to design a device which can take in signals from some part of the human nervous system and perform a single or simple action like "start," "stop," "on," "off," it is another thing to go down to the nanoscale and have these things being done at extremely fast speeds with complex chemical "acknowledgement signals" (or feedback may be a better word), and multiple chemical receptor sites.

Some of these people who are attaching human electronic circuits to their bodies are not realizing a fully functional replacement of the lost limb or organ or perceptor.
Let's see if we can reasonably determine whether or not memory perceptions are stored in the body or separate of it before we say that there CAN or CANNOT be an interface to it. Otherwise on the other subject of nanotech interfaces with human cells as far as I can see it, it is a case by case basis of succeed or fail for each interface attempted. We will be seeing in real time as the science headlines come out whether or not it really can be done. Some of the interfaces don't need to be done an a cell - to - nanobot or nanostrucure basis and some nanotech probably can be plugged or attached into a structure but let's keep in mind the complexity of human cells and their need for feedback via chemicals and such. Cells are complicated things, they've got lipoproteins, various amino acids, various enzymes such as superoxidase, they use salts (potassium and sodium) to get stuff in and out of their membranes against the pressure, they've got insulin receptors, other hormone receptors, iron receptors all kinds of stuff going on (for some reason I'm drawing a blank on more details, maybe I'm tired).

Correct my math if I'm wrong and I'll correct this post.

_Owen_

July 13th, 2005, 06:51 PM

That is a very good post, rep for you! I am really interested in the concept of memory being stored elsewhere. In fact who is to say that what we see is everything, from here it gets complicated, but that is all right. We can see a desk and a chair, and we can see walls around us ciellings above us and floors below us. But that doesn't have to be it, just because we can't see some other plane, doesn't meant that it doesn't exist, in fact, everything that we know could be wrong. it is like reading a book, straight through and then finding out there are four hundred and fifty three other books in the series, and you haven't even finished the introduction. This is an amazing concept, everything could be stored on another plane of the universe, in fact the universe could be nothing as well, the universe could just be walls a cieling and a floor, there could be another area, beyond the universe, but also within it, and all around us, something so complex we couldn't ever hope to understand. Now we are talking interesting!

Owen Macri

PrimalAscended

July 14th, 2005, 11:08 AM

Interesting theories, but your calculations of memory "needed" Aironoeus are assuming we remember everything we ever percieve or experience!! And from my (albeit limited) knowledge that is misleading, as we have two types of memory, short term and long term. Only long term memory stores our experiences for a period of time and then not anywhere near the amount of information you suggest. Short term memory is a sort of buffer where stuff is remembered but is later erased unless its transferred to long term memory areas. A crude analogy is RAM and the hard drive of a computer. Even so, we dont know enough about memory to be sure exactly how it works.

Also, in this "external memory" theory, how do you explain memory loss and amnesia due to damage to the brain?

Interested to hear your thoughts on that..........

aironoeus

July 15th, 2005, 07:07 AM

Look, I hate talking about spiritualism and anything having to do with religions or anything that could be associated with religions. I am done with all that religous stuff.
But look. You can't make a statement with SUCH CERTAINTY about us not being able to remember everything, or that everything is not stored and there is some sort of decision about whether or not "we get to remember something."
There is no "buffer" and then a decision. That's definitely not the case.

What the heck is a "subconcious" if everything is not stored?

Why is it that sometimes you need a little coaxing in order to remember something that happened a while back and the more you talk about it the more details come up.

Why can you remember very bad experiences you had before. If you were choosing, then why would you choose to hold on to a bad memory.

Come on now, I hate talking about this subject of the mind.

Just admit that there is a whole lot of people that will tell you BESIDES ME that you can recover past experiences that YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD FORGOTTEN.

This whole subject is so friggin complicated and full of sensitive topics that I really don't want to get into it. Some people have "better memory" than others but it has to do with extenuating circumstances I'm sure. There are some sort of basic laws that can be applied to this memory thing in the mind and then the apparent departures have reasons behind them.

And I really really really don't want to talk about why peoples quality of memory are different from one person to the next.
Let's get back to the subject of Nanotech. But can we please realize that the mind and memory is a complicated subject and can we talk about other nanotechnology please. Why do we have to immediately jump to the most complicated, unexplored, unproven, difficult-to-define application for nanotech? Why can't we talk about all the other interesting stuff that nanotech is doing nowadays?
How about boronitride nanotubes. Those things are hard as heck and can withstand high temperatures.

Hey, if I cut your right arm off will you be able to access the memory in your computer? Oh, you'll just go get a left hand mouse.
Ok, how about cut off both hands? Can you access the data in your hard drive now?
Ok, forget the hands. I cut the power to your monitor. How's your memory access now? Gee, you can't get to it.
Ok, how about I splash oatmeal all over your monitor? How's your memory access now? Having trouble nanvigating? Can't tell me what exactly you're seeing?
Oh, gee. Well now I arrive at the very scientific conclusion that your memory is damaged?
hmmmmmmmmmm

PrimalAscended

July 15th, 2005, 03:26 PM

Hey buddy don't be so defensive I was just putting another point of view on the subject. Oh and I never mentioned there was a conscious decision on whether to remember things or not, but now as you've brought it up in some cases there are, thats what learning is.

As you say I dont want to get into the whole spritual thing either as it has nothing to do with this thread, but I will just point out that phenomenon of "recovered memories" has both research for and against its validity.

Finally lets get back to the spirit of this thread and why I started it, the use of Stargate universe nanotechnology and its possible applications.......not real life nanotech......Stargate nanotech.....

What would you like variations of the "Brief Candle" nanocytes or "Hot Zone" nanoviurses to be used for????

_Owen_

July 17th, 2005, 07:16 PM

Interesting theories, but your calculations of memory "needed" Aironoeus are assuming we remember everything we ever percieve or experience!! And from my (albeit limited) knowledge that is misleading, as we have two types of memory, short term and long term. Only long term memory stores our experiences for a period of time and then not anywhere near the amount of information you suggest. Short term memory is a sort of buffer where stuff is remembered but is later erased unless its transferred to long term memory areas. A crude analogy is RAM and the hard drive of a computer. Even so, we dont know enough about memory to be sure exactly how it works.

Also, in this "external memory" theory, how do you explain memory loss and amnesia due to damage to the brain?

Interested to hear your thoughts on that..........
The reason that we could loose memory due to brain dammage could possibly be because the centers of our brain that acces the information are damaged. That or perhaps you need some kind of code or adress to acces certain memory, and that information could be stored in the brain, then it could be lost, or damaged.

Owen Macri

aironoeus

July 19th, 2005, 07:08 AM

I thought it was "Nanotech in Stargate" not "stargates nanotech." If I had understood the misleading title that you are defending, "Buddy" I never would have jumped in. Sorry to do so.

6thMonolith

July 19th, 2005, 12:22 PM

The reason that we could loose memory due to brain dammage could possibly be because the centers of our brain that acces the information are damaged. That or perhaps you need some kind of code or adress to acces certain memory, and that information could be stored in the brain, then it could be lost, or damaged.

Owen Macri

Hmmm, a code, like a firewall against telepaths? That would be interesting.

_Owen_

July 19th, 2005, 02:57 PM

More like a password to access your file on the computer. You may have hundreds of diffrent profiles on your computer, but the username is what differentiates between the information, in this case you don't need a username, the password is both a username and a password.